Schneider Shorts 20.03.2026 – Good experiences with young women from Indonesia

Schneider Shorts of 20 March 2026 – a mysterious German “professor” accused of horrible sex crimes but defended by German justice, an American antivaxxer wants a cancer society locked up, an Italian university pretends to investigate its papermillers, and finally, how an Australian tech bro cured his dog’s cancer with ChatGPT.

---

Science Elites

Good experiences with young women from Indonesia

On 12 March 2026, the German newspaper Welt published an article by the journalist Thilo Komma-Pöllath. A Frankfurt-based doctor was accused of sexual abuse of an Indonesian girl, and somehow, an article on For Better Science seems to be involved! Here some translated excerpts from the Welt report:

“Nisa S.* fled her arranged marriage to a German man 33 years her senior from the Frankfurt area. The young woman went to the police and explained that she had been raped for years. Instead of a thorough investigation, the case was quickly closed, even though the evidence was exceptionally strong.[…]

In the spring of 2011, her older sister Kiki set up a profile for her on a dating platform. Nisa, 17 years old and without any sexual experience, hoped for an online pen pal relationship with someone her own age – “maybe a year or two older, with blue eyes,” Nisa writes in retrospect.”

Soon, she was contacted by a man who claimed to be in his early 30ies, who hid his face but called Nisa a “very special girl” and asked her for nude photos, which she refused. The newspaper calls the man “Martin”, but it is not his real name, we are told.

In July 2011, “Martin” arrived to Jakarta, Nisa was urged by her family to travel from their home city of Makassar in Sulawesi, and meet him:

“There, the minor discovered, to her shock, that Martin wasn’t 30, but a 50-year-old bald “old man” in whom she “would never be interested,” she later wrote.

An email exchange between Nisa and Martin reveals that he gave her skincare tablets in Jakarta – in reality, they were birth control pills. Nisa stated in three interrogations with German police after her escape in 2023 that the sexual abuse of the minor allegedly began in Jakarta and shortly afterward during a visit by Martin to Makassar in September 2011. She described the assaults explicitly and consistently in her written account. This involved years of severe sexual abuse, which, according to Martin, never occurred when questioned by the editorial staff.”

Nisa was forced by her family to marry “Martin”, after her mother discovered on that September 2011 day in Makassar “her daughter’s blood-stained tissues and clothes and concluded that Martin had “forced her into sexual acts, resulting in the loss of her virginity”“. Nisa was 17 years old. The family honour had to be saved.

“Martin” and his lawyer denied to the journalists that the sexual assault happened or that the marriage was forced. But fact is, “Martin” took Nisa to Germany with him:

“With this alleged first rape in September 2011, Martin tried in numerous conversations to convince the mother to let him take Nisa – as a professor, he could easily obtain a student visa for her in Germany; marriage was never mentioned. […] In early 2012, when the marriage had been agreed upon, Martin wrote in an email to Nisa: “You are MINE now.” […]
Shortly after her 18th birthday, in April 2012, Nisa was married. This was just four weeks after Martin had divorced his first wife, Nadira*, a former Muslim student from Oman.”

The 18 year old arrived to Germany already pregnant and lived in in Martin’s house south of Frankfurt from May 2012 until her escape in September 2022, An official marriage took place in Denmark in June 2012, their son was born in January 2013, the article calls him Andreas. Nisa was fully controlled and “completely dependent on Martin, a respected doctor in the Frankfurt area.”

In a court hearing, “Martin” openly admitted to have had many affairs, even as he was arranging his marriage with Nisa, and that that he had “good experiences with young women from Indonesia“, whom he recruited as maids and au pairs, he laughed when describing sex with them as “very satisfying“. As the journalist writes, there is a clear pattern: “Martin seeks out very young, impoverished women from broken homes within a conservative, Muslim cultural context.“

In 2022, Nisa fled “Martin”, she was afraid of him, the article mentions: “His choleric outbursts of anger, including those in the clinic, are well-documented.” “Martin” filed criminal charges against her, for alleged child abduction, because their son Andreas stayed overnight with his half-brother; and for theft, because Nisa shopped with his credit card as usual. And, obviously this goes in privacy-obsessed Germany when you introduce yourself as “professor”: “He personally visited the stores to secure surveillance camera footage, intending to later hand it over to the police as alleged evidence.“

Wait, it gets worse.

“the Darmstadt public prosecutor’s office opened an investigation in 2023 against Martin on suspicion of sexually abusing his own son. During questioning by judges, court-appointed guardians, and the youth welfare office, Andreas stated that his father had repeatedly asked him to perform sexual acts. According to a sworn affidavit from a family friend, Andreas allegedly revealed to him that his father had forced him to watch his mother being raped.
The charges were dropped when Nisa wanted to spare her son a trial. In the family psychiatric report, Martin openly admitted to having watched pornography in front of Andreas and to having answered the 8-year-old’s question about sex with: “You stick your dick in the girl’s vagina.””

Nisa’s lawyer reported “five aggravated rapes, three of which involved a minor, at least one of which took place in Germany in December 2011” But the German justice took the “professor’s” side against a foreign Muslim woman who doesn’t speak German. The police treated Nisa rudely, refused to call an interpreter in her native language, she had to answer in her broken English, the whole charade took merely 50 including English translation. Three dozen of witnesses were named, none were interviewed. Nisa’s sister specially travelled to Germany from Indonesia to give evidence, the police then said her testimony wasn’t needed. Also, a police woman claimed that “that sexual intercourse with minors was “not a crime”, which is obviously a lie. Nisa was accused by the public prosecutor of having fabricated the charges because she wanted custody for her son after separation from “Martin”.

“the Darmstadt public prosecutor’s office adopted Martin’s narrative of a “non-violent and consent-oriented” relationship, even though the alleged ordeal is well-documented by a dozen witnesses, sworn affidavits, a 208-page written record of events, audio recordings, emails, and WhatsApp messages.”

All criminal investigations were abandoned by the public prosecutors in Darmstadt and in Frankfurt.

Horrible. Who might this professor of medicine be? Why is the justice system on his side? Are maybe some important local judges, state prosecutors and police officers his patients?

There is a clue in the Welt article:

“And professionally, Martin doesn’t seem to be who he claims to be: In the Swiss canton of Lucerne, he is no longer allowed to practice medicine following a controversial stem cell therapy in 2012, according to the health department upon request; the Hessian State Medical Association confirms ongoing expulsion proceedings against him for using the title of professor. A science blogger called Martin a “quack” in 2022 – the post remains online to this day without objection.”

And then this bombshell fell. The journalist Thilo Komma-Poellath posted his Welt article on LinkedIn, and he added two hyperlinks:

Guess where these two links go. My own LinkedIn profile and my website, For Better Science. Am I this science blogger who called Martin a “quack” in 2022?

There is only one article about medical stem cell quackery in Frankfurt area on my website. And this article is from 2022.

That 2022 article of mine is about the radiologist Michael Stehling, owner and director of the ANOVA clinic, where quack stem cell therapies are offered, for all possible diseases including erectile dysfunction. Stehling also owns the less controversial Vitus Clinic for prostate cancer and “Prof. Dr. Stehling Institut für Bildgebende Diagnostik GmbH“, all three are located in the same address, Strahlenbergerstraße 110 in Offenbach (south of Frankfurt), Stehling’s public photos show a largely bald man with dark residual hair and a long face, one can easily mistake him for “Martin” shown in the blurred pictures in the Welt article which I quote-posted above.

Stehling is also not really a professor, as I reported, and I notified the German authorities back in 2022 about his false professorship and his stem cell quackery. In December 2025/January 2026, Stehling stopped calling himself Professor, while “Martin” was being investigated for carrying a false professorship degree.

And as for aforementioned Lucerne, that provides another clue. A local newspaper article from 2016 seems to refer to the aforementioned stem cell case from 2012. There, “a German doctor in Lucerne took stem cells from the iliac crest of children under general anesthesia and reintroduced them into the bloodstream.” The patient was a severely disabled girl from Belarus, her treatment was originally planned in Germany, but then new German laws outlawed it, so the parents brought their child to Switzerland, where “Martin” “had a license to practice in the canton of Lucerne since November 2012” and where the therapy was apparently illegal also, but happened anyway. The doctor was paid by the parents $9000, in cash. Now, the local newspaper mentioned that that German doctor was the boss of the Lucerne-based company Intercare. And guess what: Stehling’s CV which I found online names him as founder and owner of Intercare, also of Inter Science in Lucerne (an affiliation he also used on his publications from 2015 and from 2016), and, what crazy coincidence, it even lists his licence to practice medicine of 2012-2013 for Lucerne.

According to that same CV, Stehling was born in January 1961. In July 2011 he was 50 years old, and so was “Martin” according to the Welt article.

Now I wrote to Stehling again, several times, to his private as well as to his clinic email addresses, asking him to explain this confusion, and what this Welt article has to do with my reporting from 2022. No reply.

By the way, Stehling did his PhD with the Nobel Prize laureate Peter Mansfield, his Offenbach clinic even advertises with Mansfield’s face, never mind Stehling’s mentor died in 2017 and can’t really have agreed to advertise for those crazy stem cells cures. But: Mansfield’s biography at Royal Society mentions Stehling, and it cites seven of their common papers. Not just that: even Mansfield’s official Nobel Prize profile from 2003 mentions this charming mentee from Germany.

---

Scholarly Publishing

AACR should be investigated

The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) dared to issue 4 Expressions of concern for Wafik El-Deiry‘s fake papers. The Brown University professor, antivaxxer and the online troll behind “Science Guardians” threatens on X to have the AACR responsibles put in jail.

Here are the four papers, the publisher was even afraid to call their notices Expression of Concern, so they were called “Editor’s Note”:

Shengliang Zhang, Lanlan Zhou, Bo Hong, A. Pieter J. Van Den Heuvel, Varun V. Prabhu, Noel A. Warfel , Christina Leah B. Kline, David T. Dicker, Levy Kopelovich, Wafik S. El-Deiry Small-Molecule NSC59984 Restores p53 Pathway Signaling and Antitumor Effects against Colorectal Cancer via p73 Activation and Degradation of Mutant p53 Cancer Research (2015) doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.can-13-1079 

The “Editor’s Note” aka Expression of Concern from 16 March 2026 went:

“The editors are publishing this note to alert readers to an issue about this article (1).

Figures 2F and 3C appear to contain a duplicated control panel, “Ran,” which has bands that represent different doses. The first author has clarified these panels are from the same experiment, share a loading control, and that Fig. 3C contains a typo in the dosing heading, which should be “0, 3, 6, 12, 25” (instead of “0, 6, 12, 25, 50”), which matches the heading in Fig. 2F for the respective bands.

In addition, Fig. 4C appears to contain two duplicated rows, presented as rows p53 and IgG, wherein the contrast was increased in row IgG. The first author located the original, uncropped images for these figures, in which the left four lanes were used in Fig. 4C. These original figures are included as Supplementary Data for this notice.”

In the same journal, featuring another major American science cheater, Andres Klein-Szanto, about whom I just wrote in March 2026 Shorts:

Seok-Hyun Kim, Hiroshi Nakagawa, Arunasalam Navaraj, Yoshio Naomoto, Andres J.P. Klein-Szanto , Anil K. Rustgi, Wafik S. El-Deiry Tumorigenic conversion of primary human esophageal epithelial cells using oncogene combinations in the absence of exogenous Ras Cancer Research (2006) doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.can-06-2104 

Also here, the Expression of Concern, pardon, Editor’s Note, from 16 March 2026:

“The editors were made aware of issues regarding certain data in this article (1). Figure 2A appears to contain two duplicated mice, representing different time points, which are presented in row NEO, columns 10 and 70.

The editors are publishing this note to alert readers to these issues.”

This paper has only two authors, and El-Deiry was quick to blame his Chinese student:

Shulin Wang, Wafik S El-Deiry Inducible silencing of KILLER/DR5 in vivo promotes bioluminescent colon tumor xenograft growth and confers resistance to chemotherapeutic agent 5-fluorouracil Cancer Research (2004) doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.can-04-1734 

The Editor’s Note:

“The editors were made aware of issues regarding certain data in this article (1). Figure 3B appears to contain two duplicated panels, one of which was horizontally flipped. These are the second and third panels in row 5.8S RNA.

The editors are publishing this note to alert readers to these issues.”

Another El-Deity paper, in another AACR journal:

John P. Plastaras, Seok-Hyun Kim , Yingqiu Y. Liu , David T. Dicker , Jay F. Dorsey , James McDonough , George Cerniglia , Ramji R. Rajendran , Anjali Gupta, Anil K. Rustgi, J. Alan Diehl, Charles D. Smith, Keith T. Flaherty, Wafik S. El-Deiry Cell Cycle–Dependent and Schedule-Dependent Antitumor Effects of Sorafenib Combined with Radiation Cancer Research (2007) doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.can-07-1473 

Here the Expression of Concern:

“The editors were made aware of issues regarding certain data in this article (1). Figure 6B appears to contain two duplicated mice in the control row, representing different time points: −2 and 0.

The editors are publishing this note to alert readers to these issues.”

Under some of these and his other many PubPeer threads, El-Deiry posted in July 2024 this statement, where he claimed to to be a victim of political persecution by anonymous PubPeer commenters:

Right after the Editor’s Notes/Expressions of Concern were published, El Deiry went to his favourite place, the Nazi social media website X, to threaten AACR. He did this in a typical Trump manner, with investigations by US government authorities, which in Trump jargon usually means a threat of imprisonment:

“This is extremely problematic that @CR_AACR @AACR @AACR_CEO just did this for manuscripts published two decades ago. They have succumbed to the wishes of PubPeer to destroy careers and silence science that questions pharma products. The AACR is highly supported by big pharmaceutical companies and may have possible sold out. As a 30+ year loyal member of AACR with many hundreds of presentations over the years including the most in the world in some recent years, I am deeply saddened by what has happened with the pollution of PubMed records with “concerns” on old publications in @CR_AACR . Perhaps AACR’s conflicts should be investigated given the aggressive handling of anonymous concerns with hiding behind policies and guidelines and not listening to the seriousness of what PubPeer has been doing to the field. I had previously offered to advise AACR on very important issues related to research integrity, PubPeer, public trust but this was ignored. Damaging reputations of innocent individuals requires the attention of our professional societies as US science continues to be damaged. I have called on @HHSGov and @NIH to weigh in on the weaponization of post peer-review platforms such as PubPeer and the consequences that include never ending professional harassment through never-ending investigations, contacting employers and journals.”

Wafik El-Deiry:on X

Sadly, no cavalry arrived to hunt down Wafik’s critics, so Wafik continued whining on X:

El-Deiry even wrote a chapter about PubPeer in his book draft, about himself as a genius saint, titled “God was in the Room“. But he is clearly losing his mind, next to PubPeer, his other prime obsession is outright antivaxxery. El-Deiry hangs out with the worst criminals now, like Del Bigtree (the rest on the speakers list is not better):

Look at what else El-Deiry posted on X:

---

Retraction Watchdogging

It is in our best interest to conclude the case

Maybe you recall a certain Iranian papermiller called Siamak Hoseinzadeh, who still remains listed as professor at Sapienza University of Rome in Italy. He featured in these articles:

However, Hoseinzadeh isn’t really in Rome, even if this university and he himself pretend to this status even on his most recent publications. His LinkedIn and ORCID profiles reveal that he left Italy in 2024 and went to the University of Utah in USA, where he again left in December 2025 after merely 3 months, quite possibly because a certain sleuth notified that university.

It didn’t help that to avoid being associated with fraud and retraction, our hero did the only honourable thing: he changed his name! Siamak Hoseinzadeh ceased to exist, long live the totally innocent Siamak Hosseinzadeh!

Now, to Siamak’s most recent retraction, featuring a certain Ali Chamkha, about whom you ca read here:

Here is that paper Springer Nature retracted, it excessively cited Chamkha, Hoseinzadeh, and other papermilers, especially Mohsen Sheikholeslami:

S. Hoseinzadeh, P. S. Heyns , A. J. Chamkha , A. Shirkhani Thermal analysis of porous fins enclosure with the comparison of analytical and numerical methods Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry (2019) doi: 10.1007/s10973-019-08203-x 

On 16 February 2026, this retraction arrived:

“The Editor-in-Chief retracted this article as there is evidence that the peer review process for this article has been subverted. Concerns about this article were initially raised regarding the unusual pattern of citations in the article. Upon further investigation, most of the citations in this article can be attributed to one of three authors. The Editor-in-Chief therefore no longer has confidence in the reliability of this article.

On behalf of all authors, Siamak Hoseinzadeh stated that they disagree with this retraction.”

Now, since at least October 2023, Maarten van Kampen has been begging Sapienza University to investigate their two Iranian papermillers, Hosseinzadeh and Arash Karimipour, and their two native Italian papermillers, Annunziata D’Orazio and Filippo Berto, read about them all here:

More two and a half years passed. In January 2024, he was informed that Sapienza finally assembled a research integrity committee, because it didn’t have one before. An immunology professor, Angela Santoni, was appointed as committee’s chair. Santoni started investigating, and asked Maarten if his “information arise only from PubPeer or also from other sources“, presumably peer-reviewed ones. In February 2024, Santoni informed Maarten that she had fun in russia (!!!):

“I was one week in Russia for teaching in a course of Immunology. In the meeting we had at the end of January, we decided to further investigate all the concerns you raised. 
Prof. D’Orazio answered some of the questions you brought up.
I am currently translating some of the major points in English and I will send you the translation as soon as possible,“

Needless to say, the russia-lover Santoni never sent Maarten anything. Maarten kept writing to Santoni, in vain, until in August 2024, the Ethics Committee‘s section head Alessandra Intraversato informed him that all his unreplied “emails and comments” have been “taken into consideration and the committee is working on them.” Maarten then wrote some emails with new evidence to Intraversato, in May 2025, he received this:

“we are aware of the problems encountered in the cases of Berto and D’orazio. In the case of Prof. Berto, we have received directly from him all the documentation related to NTNU’s investigation.
The investigation continues and is leading to results, in particular Sapienza is working to make sure that the integrity of the research is recognized by all academic components.“

Berto was just then found guilty of research misconduct in Norway (read May 2025 Shorts). Maarten kept writing to Sapienza, and sending even more evidence of D’Orazio’s and Karimipour’s papermilling. In October 2025, he was told to stop this:

“We confirm that the investigation is ongoing and includes an analysis of publications from the last 10 years up to August 2025. The Commission has already scheduled a meeting to discuss the case, so I would like to point out that adding new cases would force us to reopen the preliminary investigation phase, effectively slowing down the process. You will agree that it is in our best interest to conclude the case.“

Maarten kept writing, nobody replied. In March 2026, Maarten wrote to Sapienza again, because one of their professors, Davide Astiaso Garcia, was endorsing Hosseinzadeh on LinkedIn:

Now, as Maarten told Sapienza, Garcia has 5 papers on PubPeer, all with Hoseinzadeh. Mostly it is about peer review conflicts of interests or irrelevant citations (as papermills do), but there is also this preprint about which I wrote in August 2025 Shorts:

Mario Lamagna , Yashar Aryanfar , Siamak Hoseinzadeh , Benedetto Nastasi , Davide Astiaso Garcia , Soheil Mohtaram , HongGuang Sun Assessment and Optimization of a Single Flash Geothermal System Recovered by a Trans-Critical Co2 Cycle Using Different Scenarios SSRN (2023) doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4351022 

The SSRN preprint is from February 2023, four of its seven authors are from Sapienza University, Hoseinzadeh, Garcia, plus associate professor Benedetto Nastasi and a PhD student named Mario Lamagna, all with their institutional addresses. A year later, on January 2024, the same paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal, but with all different authors except for Yashar Aryanfar. One of his newly acquired authors is the known papermill fraudster Sayed M. Tag El-Din, who writes his name in many variations, not just two like our hero Siamak. Aryanfar was pulling off similar things with El-Din before, with other preprints and papers: Aryanfar et al 2021, Aryanfar 2022a. Aryanfar 2022b, Aryanfar & Alcatraz et al 2023…

Now, what happened next was unusual. The 2024 peer-reviewed paper was NOT retracted, instead, as I wrote in August 2025 Shorts, the publisher Wiley decided:

“Yashar Aryanfar claimed the SSRN was submitted first by Mario Lamagna to Elsevier but got rejected after the preprint version was published. After the rejection, the original authors wished to withdraw from the project. As a sole responsible author, he claimed the EP article was revised and was significantly improved. The Wiley paper is original and has not been published elsewhere.”

Yes, the original preprint was removed completely! It still however exists as archived SSRN page and a pdf stored by a PubPeer user, which I downloaded also:

Obviously, the papermill broker Aryanfar sells same manuscripts to different sets of customers. The Sapienza preprint probably didn’t pass peer review in a journal and was abandoned by its Italian coauthors. But elsewhere, the Aryanfar-El Din gang pushed it through and published theirs in a journal. After that was exposed, the Sapineza University ordered the removal of the… preprint.

See, they are doing a lot in Rome (with occasional trips in russia).

---

Science Breakthroughs

Holy crap, it worked

An Australian tech bro claims he cured his dog’s cancer using ChatGPT, with some help from the University of New South Wales (UNSW). He is being celebrated as a genius superhero by all the media worldwide, but there’s a part which the media and even the UNSW scientists do not mention.

The global excitement started with the newspaper The Australian reporting on 13 March 2026:

“Abandoned in bushland, eight-year-old Rosie found her forever home with Sydney tech entrepreneur Paul Conyngham, who adopted the staffy-shar pei cross from an animal shelter in 2019 – just in time for pandemic lockdowns.

Heartbroken when his fur-baby was diagnosed with a deadly mast cell cancer in 2024, Mr ­Conyngham threw thousands of dollars at veterinary chemotherapy and surgery, which slowed but failed to shrink the tumours. Now, after treatment with a custom mRNA cancer vaccine over the Christmas break, the tennis ball-sized tumour on Rosie’s hock has shrunk in half, in a recovery that has astounded researchers at the cutting-edge of human cancer treatments. […]

In a tale of tenacity, Mr Conyngham used a chatbot to brainstorm possible cures for Rosie’s cancer – then harnessed artificial intelligence to process gigabytes of genetic data to create the blueprint for an mRNA vaccine.

Harnessing some of Australia’s most sought-after scientists to manufacture the vaccine in laboratories at the University of NSW, he then tracked down the only veterinary researcher with ethics approval to administer the experimental drug.

It was ChatGPT that suggested immunotherapy, pointing Mr Conyngham to the UNSW Ramaciotti Centre for Genomics”

Conyngham, co-founder of the consulting business Core Intelligence Technologies, paid $3000 to UNSW’s Ramaciotti Centre (a genomics service facility) to sequence his dog’s cancer genome, and then fed this sequence into ChatGPT, where he explained he “ran it through a whole bunch of different (data) pipelines to find those mutations, and then I used other algorithms to find drugs to treat the cancer“. Using ChatGPT and the protein analysis tool AlphaFold, Conyngham then decided to cure the dog with some immunotherapy drug, which the manufacturer refused to supply for compassionate use, as The Australian informs.

UNSW has their own celebratory reporting about this breakthrough, published only later, on 17 March 2026, and this article says something very different: that this immunotherapy drug, “known as a checkpoint inhibitor — another Nobel Prize winning medicine“, was actually injected together with the mRNA vaccine. You will soon see why this is important.

The Australian writes that Martin Smith, director of Ramaciotti Centre, proposed to design that mRNA vaccine against cancer, something on which even Biontech and Moderna failed. Pall Thordarson, director of the UNSW RNA Institute, was looped in, The article doesn’t say how much the IT entrepreneur paid to UNSW to work with him (“tens of thousands of dollars” are mentioned), but it is none of our business anyway.

The RNA expert and the IT guy then worked together. Conyngham “ran an algorithm to inform the design of the mRNA and sent it to us, and we made a little nanoparticle”, as Thondarson explained. Meanwhile, Conyngham was working for three months “to get an Australian ethics approval to run a drug trial on Rosie” where he spent “two hours aside every single night just typing up this 100-page document“, because apparently ChatGPT can cure cancer but can’t write such standard documents.

The therapy started in December 2025, at University of Queensland in Brisbane under the supervision of deputy head of veterinary science school, Rachel Allavena. We are told that some tumours on the dog’s legs shrunk in size.

Conyngham’s scientist partner at UNSW Smith was quoted by The Australian:

“It was like holy crap, it worked!’’ says Martin Smith […].
“It raises the question, if we can do this for a dog, why aren’t we rolling this out to all humans with cancer? It gives hope to a lot of people, and it’s something we’re passionate about trying to chase up here.’’”.

It was pronounced that “Rosie’s recovery has been a howling success, with most of her tumours appear to melt away in a matter of weeks.” But the progress is not over!

“Rosie’s devoted dog-dad is now working on a second vaccine targeted to attack one large tumour that did not respond to the initial treatment. The UNSW scientists started work on the genetic sequencing this week.”

And this is where it gets interesting. I also asked AI about those mast cell tumours in dogs. AI says that high-grade or metastatic tumours have a prognosis “ranging from 4 months (without treatment) to 1–2 years with therapy“, which is surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. Conyngham claims his vaccine removed 75% of cancer, but neither he not all those media reports ever said what other, conventional treatments he subjected his dog to. Well, UNSW did, in a fancy article from June 2025: “multiple surgeries, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy“, and recall that co-injected checkpoint inhibitor the newer UNSW article mentioned. Thus, I also asked AI about checkpoint inhibitors associated with Nobel Prizes: it pointed me to Gilvetmab, which according to AI is “a conditionally approved Merck Animal Health USA canine anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor for treating dogs with stage I-III mast cell tumors“, and “Trials showed a ~73% disease control rate“.

Right-ho. Well, great for Gilvetmab, maybe less great for that magic vaccine?

I then wrote to the UNSW professors Smith and Thordarson. They sent me long replies.

Smith’s reply was the opposite of his usual “holy crap, it worked” attitude:

“You are correct to highlight that Rosie received a multimodal treatment, including a checkpoint inhibitor alongside the mRNA-based approach (a common approach in human clinical studies). As such, it is not possible to attribute any observed clinical response to a single component of the treatment.

It’s important to highlight that this work was not conducted as a controlled clinical study, but rather emerged from an individual, citizen science–type effort. […]

Our role was limited to specific research components and did not include clinical decision-making or treatment administration. As a result, there are no appropriate controls or comparators that would allow causal inference regarding efficacy, and any interpretation of outcomes must be made with caution. […]”

So yes, they treated the dog with an immunotherapy drug with proven efficacy. I pointed out that under this clinical protocol, not just their vaccine but also exorcism, prayer chants and shamanic dances would have “worked” on that dog and its mast cell cancer.

Thordarson sent me an even longer reply, where he blamed the media and tech bros on X for misinterpreting everything:

“[…] there was nothing special about the individual steps taken and as Paul has been always clear on, Rosie isn’t even cured (just better). […] Now… to the checkpoint inhibitor. As you say, we put that in our story here at UNSW. Which only came out on Tuesday for technical reason […]

Commercial journalist are different from us. […] I am 99% sure that in the background info they were given (which would have probably also the draft story that our media people had prepared and you are reading now) the checkpoint inhibitor would have been mentioned. Paul is actually proud of that too – he came up with that because, again, using AI he worked out that you would be very wise. Both BioNTech (BNT122 / RO7198457 + anti‑PD‑1) and Moderna (mRNA‑4157 + pembrolizumab (melanoma)) do so (disclaimer – I did use m365 copilot to find this!).  And in an N=1 he couldn’t have done easily the control. So my question would be – why would Paul not have used a checkpoint inhibitor here?

So but anyway, for whatever reason the Australian didn’t mentioned that Paul used a checkpoint inhibitor. […]

before we knew it the story took on its own life on Twitter (X) on Sunday and went international with the “techbros” leading the way. […] Paul did partake in that twitter storm and probably realised then at some point that people didn’t know that part (because it wasn’t in the Australian) that hey yes, so he started to make a note of that too that he had also used a checkpoint inhibitor in the multi-modal treatment […] As we joined in later we mentioned that too and the fact that there is no data yet on how much of the response is from the mRNA. […]”

Thordarson also told me that “the best analysis of what was done here was given by Ash Jogalehar” on X. Oh really? From that very long X post it is clear that the AI tech bro Ash Jogalekar either has no clue a checkpoint inhibitor was used, or more likely, he knows but doesn’t want you to know. His main point is that regulatory restrictions around clinical trials must be abolished because tech bros with AI entered the stage, and they will now cure everything:

Thordarson, ever the scientist, also told me:

“Re Glivetmab – we can’t confirm or deny.“

He explained “we are not allowed to share that info” because Conyngham is currently trying to patent his specific therapy combination of mRNA vaccine and checkpoint inhibitor.

Wow. They all know that there is exactly zero proof that their AI-designed mRNA vaccine worked, but they all make big plans to ride the media wave and make a lot of money with it. The Australian mentioned:

“Rosie’s response has inspired David Thomas, inaugural director of the UNSW Centre for Molecular Oncology, who is working on similar mRNA treatments for human patients.”

Stupid amateurs do drug discovery pipeline and randomised controlled clinical trials which they publish as peer reviewed papers. Serious scientists invite rich donors to conjure magic therapies for their sick pets with help of ChatGPT, and then lie through their teeth in international media.

---